If, as we agree, control of language and terminology is crucial, then all I was trying to do, with the legal expertise, is clear that up - from someone that even the MSM was willing to give voice to - no small thing. Dershowitz's discussion of the first amendment issues with potentially outlawing(it is NOT currently illegal!) the release of any type of information gleaned by "collusion" with a foreign power, is interesting.
So far, all we have any evidence of is that Trump's politically inexperienced son, thought he was going to get some inside scoop from Russia about Hillary's dealings - which didn't happen. If you think any Clinton operative would not have gladly accepted such info, well I would be wondering how you could be that naive. The one thing I will admit is that a Clinton individual might have handled it more expertly.
This reminds me that correlation does not equal causation - or in this case collusion, and even less so, illegal activity, such as conspiracy, that requires a massive CRIMINAL investigation by a special prosecutor who is by law required only to investigate CRIMINAL activity. The Russians hated Hillary and likely tried to influence things in their favor. They needed zero prodding from anyone to do what they did or will do the future. The only one who MAY have colluded with them is Julian Assange, for their info laundering purposes if despite his denials, that was his source. Assange colluded with Trump forces? lol.
I doubt if I have anything to say on this further,
Return to Odd
Reply to message